It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Japan declares 'nuclear emergency' after quake

page: 510.htm
513
<< 507  508  509    511  512  513 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by windwaker
 


No idea about your friends, just relaying what my experience is. Part of it may be Slavic culture at work, as it seems unless you are in the process of pushing daises, you are doing great!




posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Procharmo

OK Kailassa thanks I understand.

But does the fact that it was a dust which has been densely packed not mean that when blasted with heat and force into the air it will return to it's original state more easily than if it was not originally a powder?

Why would powder be mentioned in the article below about MOX fabrication if it were not an issue in safety.Granted it refers to the MOX production and not a reactor vessel/fuel rod explosion.

Further more has anyone ever exploded a MOX ceramic fuel rod. Did the pellets remain intact or vaporise in the intense heat from the zirconium cladding?

Good questions.
I hope someone who knows more than I do answers them.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by windwaker
reply to post by brocktoon
 


I have three Russian friends who grew up in Kiev or very close to Chernobyl and they told me that nothing happened to their families and they seem healthy. One friend even lived as close at 20km from the Chernobyl site. He tells me not to worry. Could they be denial to make themselves feel better?

I saw the HBO show ten years ago about Chernobyl children in an orphanage. The birth defects gave me nightmares. I'll never forget it. But no mention of these sorts of things from my friends.


Pretty sure its denial. Hell,we in Germany aren´t evel allowed to eat Wild Boars from South Germany because there is still Traces of Radioctivity from Chernobyl in the Meat.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 10:26 AM
link   
Quote from ineptco from paper mache/CNN link...


Fixing the problem quickly is critical because officials believe it is one source of alarmingly high levels of radiation spotted in seawater near the plant.

Asked about the radiation levels in the shaft on Sunday, Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) executive Junichi Matsumoto said told reporters that it could not yet be determined, because the devices officials were using, dosimeters, do not measure higher than 1,000 millisieverts per hour.


edition.cnn.com...

Right...we can't tell you, cos, our detectors, don't read THAT high...God/Goddess save us all.

Des

edit on 03/28/2011 by Destinyone because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 10:26 AM
link   
IAEA Update April 3 (take with a grain of...plutonium)


On Sunday, 3 April 2011, the IAEA provided the following information on the current status of nuclear safety in Japan:

1. Current Situation

Overall at the Fukushima Daiichi plant, the situation remains very serious.

On 2 April, transferring of water from the Unit 1 condenser storage tank to the surge tank of the suppression pool was completed in preparation for transferring water in the basement of the Unit 1 turbine building to the condenser. Also, on 2 April transferring of water from the Unit 2 condenser storage tank to the surge tank of the suppression pool was started in preparation for transferring water in the basement of the Unit 1 turbine building to the condenser.

A second US Navy barge arrived on 2 April carrying fresh water to be transferred to the "filtered water tank".

TEPCO has identified a possible leakage path from the Turbine building of Unit 2 to the sea via a series of trenches/tunnels used to provide power to the sea water intake pumps and supply of service water to the reactor and turbine buildings. As of 2 April, 07:25 UTC, the pouring of concrete was started in an attempt to stop the water leakage. As of 2 April, 10:15 UTC, pouring of concrete had ceased and no significant decrease in the rate of leakage was observed. There is a plan to inject polymer to attempt to stop the leakage. TEPCO announced on 2 April that, following the detection of highly contaminated water leaking through a crack found in a pit near Unit 2, they had added 3 additional sampling points at 15 km from Fukushima Daiichi and Fukushima Daiini.

Fresh water has been continuously injected into the Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV) of Unit 1 through the feed-water line at an indicated flow rate of 8 m3/h using a temporary electric pump with diesel backup. Fresh water is being injected continuously into the RPVs in Units 2 and 3 at indicated rates of 9 m3/h and 7 m3/h respectively through the fire extinguisher lines using temporary electric pumps with diesel backup.

In Unit 1 the indicated temperature at the feed water nozzle of the RPV is relatively stable at 259 °C and at the bottom of RPV at 117 °C. The RPV pressure indications are fluctuating and Drywell pressure is slightly decreasing. In Unit 2 the indicated temperature at the feed water nozzle of the RPV has decreased slightly from 161 °C to 153 °C. The temperature at the bottom of RPV was not reported. Indicated Drywell pressure remains at atmospheric pressure. The indicated temperature at the feed water nozzle of the RPV in Unit 3 is stable at 118 °C and at the bottom of the RPV is about 92 °C. The validity of the RPV temperature measurement at the feed water nozzle is still under investigation.

Injection of water into the spent fuel pool in Unit 2 using the temporary pump was restarted on 1 April.

Units 5 and 6

Both units remain in cold shutdown with plant systems operating on off-site AC power.

Common Spent Fuel Storage Facility

The Common Spent Fuel Pool temperature is stable. TEPCO tested an "anti-scattering" agent (2 000 l) on 500 m2 area around the Common Spent Fuel Storage facility on 1t April. The purpose of spraying is to prevent radioactive particles from being dispersed from the plant by winds and rain.

2. Radiation Monitoring

On 2 April, deposition of iodine-131 was detected in 7 prefectures ranging from 4 to 95 becquerel per square metre. Deposition of cesium-137 in 6 prefectures was reported on 2 April ranging from 15 to 47 becquerel per square metre. Reported gamma dose rates in the 45 prefectures showed no significant changes compared to yesterday.

Most of the previously imposed recommendations for restrictions on drinking water have been lifted. As of 2 April, one recommendation for the restriction based on iodine-131 concentration was in place in one village in the Fukushima prefecture, which applied for infants only. Meanwhile, also in this village, the iodine-131 level in drinking water has dropped below 100 becquerel per litre, which is the recommended restriction level for intake by infants. The restriction is still in place as a precautionary measure of the local authority.

Currently, one IAEA monitoring team is working in the Fukushima region. On 2 April, measurements were made at 7 locations at distances of 32 to 62 km, North and Northwest to the Fukushima nuclear power plant. The dose rates ranged from 0.6 to 4.5 microsievert per hour. At the same locations, results of beta-gamma contamination measurements ranged from 0.09 to 0.46 megabecquerel per square metre.


more here



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 10:27 AM
link   
Been lurking for a few days and created an account just to post a few thoughts. Apologies for long post, but I'm hitting several topics at once.

---

The "bodies": I'm not convinced these are bodies, as they look a bit less 'body-like' from other angles in the video before the camera gets closer, but it does seem a fair coincidence to have two "pareidolia"-ic "bodies" right near each other of similar body-like size.

Their placement: Consider the placement of the crane to which the camera is attached. If I interpret correctly, these 'bodies' are not in the building itself, but perched on top of the actual inner exposed WALL of the first "window" level at the top of reactor building 4, south side (remember, these buildings are HUGE (61m tall? reference needed), and the walls very thick), next to a 40+m drop. This seems like a very bizarre and unlikely place for bodies to end up 'randomly' in an explosion (any explosion blowing the wall out, if they were inside, would almost certainly have blown them out too), and also very coincidentally right where they're operating the crane.

It seems more likely to me that if they are bodies (but why did nobody else catch this?), that they got there during a crane-related operation - e.g. trying to hook up hosing to the crane to get them aimed at the pool for cooling, and then either got exposed to huge amounts of radiation, or perhaps fell off the crane (or less likely, even out of helicopters) - these are risky operations under the best of circumstances. Could even have been a virtual 'suicide mission'.

Timeline: Did anybody here check when in the news timeline the 'missing' two were first reported? That would give clues as to what they might have been doing, if this is actually the missing two.

Somehow though I suspect we're looking too hard and seeing things that aren't there with these bodies.

---

"Rehabilitation plan": That five- or six-point "rehabilitation plan" that ends with "plug leak": I'm no expert, but if I think about the scale of what's involved at each step, the whole thing sounds like "Mission Impossible" to me?

It might well be the best plan available to them though.

I'm afraid I'm tending towards agreeing that we're looking at fairly large amounts of contamination (but not world-ending amounts) over months or years. Worst-case scenario, perhaps chunks of the oceans may become unfishable for a while, or maybe all of it depending on food-chain effects (but on the plus side, fish populations and ocean ecosystems would - counterintuitively - massively rebound - and many poor people who rely on fishing the oceans would just accept higher cancer levels and eat it anyway - not the end of the world - though the cost of food would go up a LOT for everyone). I'm also tending to agree with the assessment that the initial earthquake may have caused so much structural damage to the foundations/bedrock that large cracks may have opened up under the reactors and that would explain a lot of what we're seeing, from the equipment they seem to be moving there, to the "rehabilitation plan" steps, to the relative media blackout (because this is going to take so long, and be so risky, it would be admitting that ongoing ocean contamination will be long-term), etc., and even why they aren't getting more international assistance (because they seem to think that covering up the mess and media shame and panic is more important than getting the right people to help get the plant under control faster). Basically I'm thinking, this is probably a huge mess, and probably there is nothing anyone can do to stop it, it's now beyond our abilities to stop. Only try prevent it getting much worse.

---

Fukushima II: I noticed on Google Earth that Fukushima II is actually only 11km from Fukushima I, interestingly. If Fukushima I keeps spewing radiation long-term, Fukushima II will literally be well inside the permanent evacuation zone. Now I'm no nuclear engineer, but doesn't this imply that it will be very difficult to operate that plant safely, permanently? Would that plant have to be decommissioned, or can they all just wear suits and carry on their business? The operators would probably have to live many miles from the plant, drive in every day, have their cumulative radiation monitored, and they'd probably have to cycle out workers and change them with new ones. Even decommissioning II would take decades, and involve a lot of work in a radioactive area.

---

Earthquake risk in area, particularly new 'big one' for Tokyo: If a new large earthquake happens, the 'big one' they've actually been waiting for, and all these nuclear power stations get hit by more tsunamis, including Fukushima again - then, well, we'd all better pray a lot, even if you're an atheist. Cleaning up Fukushima I without a bigger disaster is probably going to involve a fair bit of "luck" here, e.g. hoping nature plays along.

---

Nuclear power in general and the "Man is incredibly inventive" comment : On that note, I agree with Redneck: "No, no, no! Man is incredibly inventive, yes, but that does not mean we can change physical laws when they become inconvenient. Even if we did find an alternate energy source tomorrow (which I believe is completely possible), it will not produce the first watt on the grid for many years."

I have thought about this a lot now. The technology behind nuclear is potentially very safe, sure. But, there is the 'human factor': Plants must be run by humans, and humans are, I'm afraid, just too stupid and corrupt to manage nuclear stations - I've seen with my own eyes, on plant projects I've been marginally involved with, that even supposedly good "engineers" are prone to incredible stupidity. Every major nuclear accident has been driven to much worse levels by humans doing stupid things, either through malice (e.g. cover-ups) or stupidity. E.g. at TMI they deliberately turned off backup pumps 'for maintenance' in violation of both policy and the laws of physics - HELLO, you should not be running a system for ONE MINUTE without backup systems in place, there is a REASON why we have backup systems. At Fukushima I, they should immediately have called for major international assistance instead of claiming they had everything "under control" - again, very stupid move. Sorry but humans are 'Just Too Dumb' to operate nuclear power safely, and until we genetically re-engineer ourselves to be smarter, or create more intelligent robots to operate our plants, we WILL keep having major accidents, especially as have more plants than ever. Also there is still the chance of e.g. 1 in 100,000 major global geological events that cause tsunamis to hit nuclear plants, even in areas deemed tsunami-risk-low - which by definition tend to be built by water sources like the sea, for cooling reasons.

"But," you say, "we have accidents in all industry - coal power related accidents kill far many more people". Yes, but the difference is that nuclear industrial accidents are singularly difficult, complex, costly to contain, and radiation pollution spreads far and wide, fast, and there may be nothing humans can do to stop it when it happens. Accidents at coal power plants don't have this property.

So what to do? Well, eventually we will get better, cheaper clean energy sources. But in spite of man "being inventive", this is something HUGE numbers of people have been working on for DECADES it's been a holy grail of energy innovation for over a century, and yet we're still virtually empty-handed. Give it a few more decades and yes, we'll probably have a good replacement for nuclear for most our power needs. But, in the meantime, we DO need to keep running nuclear plants (even if we HAD a replacement tech, it takes decades to commission and build new plants). So my suggestion is that for now, we at least raise our safety standards for existing nuclear plants, and create a new global safety certification standard, with an authorized global inspection body to do routine checks. We do a thorough global safety audit of all current nuclear plants and those being built, in light of lessons learned from Fukushima. We spend some extra money improving backup systems at plants where safety risks are identified - e.g. if backup generators are in the basement, spend a few billion moving them or adding additional backup generators above tsunami level. All this should mitigate the risk of another catastrophe down to the point where major accidents like this are e.g. 1 in 1000 year events, not 'three or four per 100 years' events, and are more containable when they do occur.

Then in 30 to 60 or so years time (I doubt it'll take quicker than 20 years), when some new technology has been proven to be good enough, we slowly start decommissioning all the then-aging nuclear plants, while building replacement plants with new technologies. This would take another 20 to 40 years.

So the aim would be to (a) make current nuclear safer (which would raise it's cost somewhat - not the end of the world) in the medium term, while (b) aiming to phase it out in the longer term, e.g. by 2100 (although by then we should have those super-smart robots that can operate plants better than us).

There, that's not so hard.

---

Minamisoma mayor video: Why does the mayor of Minamisoma have to put an SOS video on YOUTUBE!? Where are the journalists!? Have they truly given up on journalism, or are journalists being blocked from the entire area? And can we trust ANY information from TEPCO, if they have such a huge media blackout on such a large area?



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by ChineseCookbook
 


Lots of great points. I tend to agree with the "body" assessment, but I don't particularly want to get drawn into that debate.

One of your best points is that of the question of background radiation and how it affects ongoing operations at the other plant. This is the reason that ships are avoiding the area, no so much for safety, but so that they don't throw alarms every time they call at a port in the future. In the case of a nuclear vessel, it is an even bigger problem, as you have no idea where radiation is coming from. The other plant? same problem.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Wertwog
 



Originally posted by Wertwog
reply to post by windwaker
 


This level of "cluelessness" is understandable given the steady diet of distraction the average person is being fed. Add to that an aversion to anything negative or "bubble bursting", then spice that up with some "no immediate impact to human health" topping and you've got a nice lie-latte to have with your Gaga.


Slightly off-topic here: this is a brilliant post! May I have it to post on my facebook status? (Maybe it will go viral!)



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 10:50 AM
link   
No expert here,. but I would think that not spending allot of time
outdoors for a while could only seem to be a very wise choice,.
I for one do not believe anything the "experts or government" is
saying about the severity of the contamination to the US.
AS this is already getting into the milk in various parts of the states
means to me that the animals we would eat and the vegetables we eat
are are already contaminated. So being as cautious as possible would be
a step that could only be beneficial to ones future health.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by jadedANDcynical
 



Originally posted by jadedANDcynical

Originally posted by monica86
I don't think it can be the base of the reactor where the torus is
The base is huge, look at the second video in my post, it shows it was put in place


videos construction of daiichi post by monica86
 


I'm not the one who said it was the torus, that was someone responding. what I originally posted was this:


Originally posted by jadedANDcynical

Originally posted by VinceH

Originally posted by zorgon
More closeups of damage

...



...



zorgon: do we know which reactor this pic if from? I'm wondering if it is #3.

Does anyone else think that the large green object in this picture might be the reactor top (obviously not where it belongs)

Vince



Originally posted by Silverlok
reply to post by TheRedneck
 










Compare those two pictures and tell me the one in the damaged building does not look like the top of the reactor vessel under construction. Not only that but it is offset from the center of the building. Every diagram I've seen shows the reactor in the center of the building.

IF that is indeed a portion of the reactor vessel, then it is been dislodged from it's original location and has several of its plates blown off.
edit on 31-3-2011 by jadedANDcynical because: Stupid iPhone typos



I was the one who posted the question saying I didn't think it was the lid. But I definitely didn't say it was the torus, either. My main question (which has still not been answered), was what is this structure?




I believe if we can identify this structure, we will be better able to identify the round structure beneath it. It is this structure which made me question whether the round structure beneath it is actually the lid. Also I stated in my post that I needed help to ascertain with certainty which reactor building this is (I now believe it to be #4).



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by webworker
I have compiled a concise list of resources that will help you understand and keep up to date on the current nuclear emergency in Fukushima:

pstuph.wordpress.com/2011/03/31/fukushimatoolkit/


You may want to add fleep.com/earthquake/ to your list.

It appears to be an amazing set of charts and lists of resources where they gathered the data.

Graphing Earthquake, Radiation and Water Data in Japan



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 11:02 AM
link   
Tepco released an image of the water flowing thru the crack.


edit on 4/3/11 by makeitso because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Destinyone

Plenty of duct tape right here in Bama... where do you need it shipped to?


 

Good morning all.

I have been thinking about that crack from yesterday... about 8 inches long, right? Am I the only one who is confused how an 8-inch long crack could release enough water into the Pacific to create the high levels we have been seeing?

That's a seep, not a gush.

I'm getting a really bad feeling over this. I posted yesterday that it is possible that the bedrock has cracked underneath Unit #4, with cracks spreading to Unit #3 and creating the oceanic radiation levels. But this 8" long crack is at Unit #2. Am I the only one seeing this pattern?

I also saw the report above about underground tunnels being sealed with concrete... is there a blueprint of this place on file anywhere? Oh, I don't know, like the nuclear regulatory agency in charge? Or maybe the main office at TEPCO?

Do these trained monkeys (no offense to trained monkeys intended) know how to read them?

Oh, and thanks for the link to the fission/fusion/fission theory... will be reading it as I get time.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by OuttaHere
 


That part of the structure seems to me to be that top part where the man is sitting in the black and white photo.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by makeitso
Tepco released an image of the water flowing thru the crack.


edit on 4/3/11 by makeitso because: (no reason given)


Thank You for posting this. Nope, I don't buy it for one nanosecond. That is a photo of water pouring out of a round hole, not a crack.

Des



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Destinyone

Plenty of duct tape right here in Bama... where do you need it shipped to?


 

Good morning all.

I have been thinking about that crack from yesterday... about 8 inches long, right? Am I the only one who is confused how an 8-inch long crack could release enough water into the Pacific to create the high levels we have been seeing?

That's a seep, not a gush.

I'm getting a really bad feeling over this. I posted yesterday that it is possible that the bedrock has cracked underneath Unit #4, with cracks spreading to Unit #3 and creating the oceanic radiation levels. But this 8" long crack is at Unit #2. Am I the only one seeing this pattern?

I also saw the report above about underground tunnels being sealed with concrete... is there a blueprint of this place on file anywhere? Oh, I don't know, like the nuclear regulatory agency in charge? Or maybe the main office at TEPCO?

Do these trained monkeys (no offense to trained monkeys intended) know how to read them?

Oh, and thanks for the link to the fission/fusion/fission theory... will be reading it as I get time.

TheRedneck



Gday Redneck
If the bed rock was slipping and splitting wouldnt that imply that a good part of the coast around the reactors has and will countinue to move until it stops or either splits away into the ocean?



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by makeitso
Tepco released an image of the water flowing thru the crack.


edit on 4/3/11 by makeitso because: (no reason given)


I have no idea what this pic is but it certainly isn't what they've been describing nor does it appear to be at the location they've attributed.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


I also feel the bedrock must be cracked. do you think this is letting seawater in slowly and that is why we are seeing the blue flashes?



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   
Here is the Kyodo News article about the leak, with 4 images.


Pit in No.2 reactor at Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant
Handout photo shows the mouth of a pit (indicated by arrow) in the No.2 reactor at the troubled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in Fukushima Prefecture on April 2, 2011. Water with high levels of radiation has been confirmed to have seeped into the sea from a crack (not related to a crack on the ground surface in the picture) detected at the pit. (Photo courtesy of Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency)(Kyodo)





edit on 4/3/11 by makeitso because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by meathed
 


very doubtful what you are describing is a landslide. there isn't enough of a grade or slope for that to happen but groundwater or seawater can come up and eventually erode the whole plant site away over time.




top topics



 
513
<< 507  508  509    511  512  513 >>

log in

join